Atheists, like most people, pick up their sense of Morality from the culture in which they grew up. For some of us, that was a culture where dad got drunk and beat mom every night, or maybe dad was gone and mom lives on welfare. For the bulk of us(in this country), it was a middle class family where you were taught is wrong to lie, cheat, and steal, regardless of whether you attended a church of any sort. One thing moral value taught to every American, and most other free countries, is the value of individual rights. The right to practice your own religion, the right to own and keep your own money, the right to choose your own mate, the right to speak your mind. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If all religion were to magically disappear tomorrow, those cultural values would not disappear any faster than the value of raping children would disappear from some Muslim countries. Regarding Atheist values in particular, they tend to be more educated so many have had the time to study Philosophy. I suppose the values they draw from their studies depend on whether they are studying Hume or Nietzsche. It is one of the few places I HEAVILY disagree with Chaos Trivia. The philosophical views these people have developed and will continue to develop are limitless and unquestionably cross the boundaries into politics. Many if not most of the people pimping Socialism and Communism are not doing it for the sole purpose of control. I suspect MOST of them truly believe that socialism is superior based on their own philosophical views. Atheism may not have directly fostered their philosophy, but it becomes a tool for beating on the "stupid christians" who oppose it. Chaos, I've heard many times the Atheists shirk their burden of proof with the line "one has no need to prove a negative". I personally do not believe the Muslims are out to destroy the Jews. Unless you can specifically prove the opposite beyond a reasonable doubt, the "default position" indicates we should leave the Muslims be and drop that blockade. The truth is, any position you take on any argument requires justification. Superior than what? Have you read Rushdie? Perhaps you are referring to the high quality of life experienced by the citizens of most nations populated heavily by Muslims. Give me the standard by which you are measuring superiority please, because I'm missing it. Regardless of who he is, his words ring true in a historical sense. Are you at all educated in history? All this religious dick measuring reminds me of an interesting chart I saw. I'll share it even though it is a bit off topic: http://www.cxoadvisory.com/gurus/ These people are the most popular financial "Gurus" in the west, who hand out their pearls of wisdom to us common folk to follow. Sort the list by the last column(Percentage of accurate prognostications). You'll notice that, though the majority of the list hovers around the 50% mark, there are actually many more under 50% than over 50%? Notice also that the top scoring guru got only 68% of his predictions right, where as the worst scoring guru hit a low of 22%? Most of these asshats claiming to know what they are talking about might as well be flipping a coin or throwing darts at a board. Of the ones who actually do have skills/inside information, they are more likely to play that information against you than they are to work to your benefit. When you brag about how good your religion/mullah treats you, all I hear a prison bitch bragging about being ass-f*cked.
I am only concerned about the questions that I have asked you, not what others have asked. If you reject all forms of authority to validate your argument, how do we independently ascertain it without being inherently biased? This sounds like an ad hominem argument to me...sounds like you are trying to avoid the real issue? What you allege has got nothing whatsoever to do with whether Atheism can independently justify the good. So if Atheism is not for everyone, why continue to try and justify it as though it is the ultimate truth? Can I just come to the conclusion that this is a question that you have never bothered to think about in the first place?
I have wandered off track a bit by focusing too closely upon my own personal Atheism and not devoting enough space to some relevant views of my fellow Atheists. Among Atheists there are no real "authorities". Richard Dawkins, for example, is a famous Atheist and the author of several books on Atheism. This means nothing. He's still just another meatsicle. But... there are Atheists who have done considerable research into the how morality is formed, and their work is interesting and potentially valuable. As Atheists, we evaluate the work, not the author. A few recommended (by Richard Dawkins!) books on the topic: Robert Hinde - Why Good is Good Michael Schermer - The Science of Good and Evil Robert Buckman - Can We Be Good Without God? Marc Hauser - Moral Minds Matt Ridley - The Origins of Virtue These fellows all argue that the definitions of right and wrong are built into our genes -- that they are a function of evolutionary natural selection. In many ways I agree with this general theory. The most obvious proof is that most people and most religions share something like 90-97% of the same ideas of right and wrong. That last 3-10% is largely due to the local environment or personal preference. While Atheism requires each individual to create their own answers, not all answers are equally right. If your brain tells you "killing and eating people is good", the other people in your environment may quickly remove you from the gene pool. In this way, "right" and "wrong" are functions of natural selection. Most of the authors above have the view that this leads to very friendly Atheists, and between them they have mountains of empirical data to back up those theories. Personally I'm skeptical. I think they are overly optimistic and that their lack of objectivity affects their results. Personally, I am more likely to accept that natural selection is a bit more cutthroat. That's been my experience and I don't see much reason to ignore that experience.
Scroll up. Your questions have been answered. Why would you want to? I wouldn't want to wear another persons morality any more than I would want to wear another persons skin. The very concept is disgusting. I'm biased. I like booze and cocaine and women with firm breasts. I like liberty and I hate totalitarianism. I like Hume and Nietzsche and I dislike Plato, Jesus, and Marx. Bias is part of being human. To give up bias is to give up your humanity. The fact that there are people who can't handle the truth does not make it any less the truth. The truth is independent of people's inability to understand or accept it. That would be pretty inane, but you're free to come up with whatever kooky conclusions you like. Have you met Breezewood?
Not sure but guess you are right. Communists mostly were against religion and think religion is opium for people. Priests in communists countries had to accept their rule if they want to survive, it doesn't mean they accept communism I think.
So this is agnostic! Then which one work according to knowledge and science, Agnostic or Atheist? Science has two terms: facts and theories. Believes in facts and accept theories till find fact about it. Even facts aren't permanent and final I guess and depend on condition so if another fact supersedes it science will accept it. For example Evolution (for human) is a theories still although science has a lot of evidence for that but isn't fact because a ring missing I guess. Could lay on it but do you think we can believe it.
[video=youtube;kbiR6jLCC7E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbiR6jLCC7E[/video] Nobody will remain an atheist after watching this video.
Even in free countries, the priest who bought into the concept of liberation theology were trying to create communist countries. Both Atheism and Agnosticism are based upon knowledge and science. Agnostics say "We have a good theory, but proof is impossible, so let's say we don't know." Atheists say "We have a good theory, and although proof may not be possible, we don't see any reason to doubt the theory. Let's roll with it." The differences are fairly subtle. The terms "facts" and "theories" seem to be pretty interchangeable over time. I believe that evolution is a theory with so much empirical evidence behind it that we must accept it as a "working theory", which some people call a fact. Egads... next thing you know I'll be buying a minivan, wearing sweaters with Birkenstocks, and doing yoga.
To me it seems like a difference in personalities and values. Agnostics value being open minded; Atheists value being decisive. Most likely Bertrand Russell summed up the difficulty better than I can in Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?: As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
Thanks. BTW, I have a Atheist neighbor who likes to use the word God in certain conversation. "Oh My God" "God Dammit" "Good God" I these just learned or accepted forms of slang expression that have become common place and are purely devoid of any reference to deity? Or is there a subtle hypocrisy, doubt, or past belief at work?
I think they are just part of the language. I feel strange saying them, but they are a part of my vocabulary as much as curse words are. The other day I started to write "The people of Panama are blessed ..." and I thought "Hmm... might want to find a better word." That happens to me all the time. I won't covert to religion on my deathbed, but when I stub my toe, God's name is the first word to explode from my lips. I think it's kind of like when people sing Auld Lang Syne. Almost no one knows what some of the words actually mean, but it's a tradition that's deeply ingrained in our culture.
Fair enough. Makes perfect sense to me. Having been raised Catholic, I find myself at the other end of a spectrum in another form of quandary. It's not God, but religion I do not "believe in", if that makes sense. The quandary is what am I. If not religious, Catholic by Baptism/Birth, but not in practice, yet not Atheist or Agnostic. Not even Christian, I guess, assuming it's more religion than belief. Just God. With age, I've found myself more thanking than asking or blaming. So it kinda begs the question. Can one believe without religion? And to that end have the same rational and logic or acceptance of a mix of science and faith without not believing? If that makes sense.
To me the question is whether or not Jesus existed and was who he claimed to be if you believe he existed. Then the old testament bringing forth the question whether or not it is true that the events took place (parting the Red Sea etc.). A lot of people in church don't believe either, but want to believe in something. That's when religion kicks in. Just in case it's true, donate some bucks so you too can be saved ...
Blogmaster I am reading a great book now on religion, and he calls this: "belief in belief". namely, the belief in the powers and virtues of belief, any belief. http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/067003472X great book. really fascinating.
Athiest usually are very smart and have figured out a scientific reason for the creation of the Earth or they are really stupid and have never take nthought to things and are just animals
Have you looked into Deism, which was very popular among America's Founding Fathers? I don't think you would fit in with the Unitarians. Their revised Bible has George Bush selling the Apple to Eve. There are just so many options with theism. It's somehow sad that the majority of the planet chooses just the most popular five. It seems that gratefulness is one of the core components of happiness, for people of any religion. I don't understand this yet, but I have seen so many examples that I cannot doubt that it is true. I think that a strong individual can believe without religion. You just believe what you believe and that's that. You lose the benefits of religion, which are mainly related to philosophical guidance and emotional support.
I have a question. Do you have any future growth predictions regarding the percentage of the population who will identify themselves as non-believers?